Belmont Health Centre Also known as Dr J Wijeratne & Parnters

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this. At our last assessment in July 2018, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating has changed from good to requires improvement.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with needs with them. Feedback from people using the service was both positive and negative. Staff were aware of how to escalate any emergency to relevant clinicians when necessary. Staff were aware of the needs of the local population. However, not all needs were correctly assessed for all the patients from our review of clinical records during the clinical searches. The provider did not have an effective system to identify people with previously undiagnosed conditions. Completed health check reviews for autistic people and people with learning disability lacked evidence of reviewed action plans despite the notes by clinician stated action plan reviewed.

The service did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Our review of clinical records demonstrated that care was provided in line with current guidance. Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation, but this was not always followed.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. The service worked with other services to ensure continuity of care.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives through regular health awareness clinics for affected patient populations. However, patients were left at risk of developing a long-term condition while support for patients with caring responsibilities needed to be improved. For example, 371 patients were identified as carers and only 15 of them had their health checks completed.

The service did not always monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of the people. The service did not meet national targets for screening and immunisations. The published uptake data available to us showed the screening uptake was lower than the national targets in both women age groups. Percentage of cervical screening uptake data from June 2024 for women aged 25 to 49 years old was 58.9% (national target 80%, minimum target 70%). Percentage of cervical screening uptake for women aged 50 to 64 was 70.2% ( national target and minimum target 80%). The published uptake data for childhood immunisations available to us showed that the minimum targets were not met in the 5 categories. Data for April 2024 to March 2025 showed the percentage of children aged 1 with completed primary course of 6:1 vaccine was 80.9% which was below 90.0% minimum. Percentage of children aged 2 with Haemophilus influenza type b and Meningitis C booster vaccine was 75.0% which was below 80.0% uptake. Percentage of children aged 2 with Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine was 76.1% which was below 80.0% uptake. Percentage of children aged 2 with pneumococcal conjugate booster vaccine was 75.5% which was below 80.0% uptake. Percentage of children aged 5 with second dose of Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR2) vaccine was 69.0% which was below 80.0% uptake.

However, the service identified the patient population group resistant to these health offers and created an action plan to improve the uptake, but the impact of these action plans was not yet known. The service completed some clinical audits.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and made in line with relevant legislation from our review of some records.